Today I saw the above meme with the following caption:
"Ancaps like to wax poetic about "homesteading" while ignoring the fact that our current land ownership paradigm is a result of conquest."
My assertion that this is an un-evidenced and unprovable statement was met with my being told that history evidences it and that I am not getting what the statement means.
I was then enlightened that the claim being made is the following:
"Ancaps claim that existing property claims are justified by 'homesteading'"
For those that have trouble arguing with nonsensical persons, here's a little lesson.
First, break down what they have said.
The former, "Ancaps like to wax poetic about "homesteading" while ignoring the fact that our current land ownership paradigm is a result of conquest," is the assertion that ancaps like to talk about homesteading while not recognizing the historical account of how the land they would homestead became available to them.
The latter, "Ancaps claim that existing property claims are justified by 'homesteading,'" says that they[ancaps] claim that their existing claims are justified by homesteading[it today].
Second, point out where the argument or statement breaks down. In this case, these are different 'arguments'. Pick one. Then discard it. It is argument without evidence. It's not even an argument. It's an assertion, claim, statement, accusation. And, just like an argument, those things, without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.
Then counter what they are 'trying' to argue. They are trying to argue that ancaps have no valid claim to the property they wish to homestead because it was taken through conquest and so it has not, since, had a valid claim upon it meaning that the person it would be acquired through has no valid claim or right to use or sell it.
The first part of the counter aims at forcing them to relate to what they are trying to assert, that ancaps have no ability to ethically or validly claim land.
We must assume the opponent is an ancom as they most often engage in shitslinging against ancaps(as ancaps are apt to shitsling at ancoms). Based on that, we posit how they would go about claiming the land for the collective:
"If property owned today is appropriated through conquest and thus claims to it are invalid for time eternal, then how will a collective claim it for the collective in order to seize the means of production without making claims on land that cannot be ethically or legitimately claimed?"
Then we get into the refutation but we present it as an unbiased 'compromise' and concession in order to keep their guard down and force them into a mood to 'meet in the middle':
"If the claim to land cannot be disputed by record showing that the land in particular was in fact claimed and possessed by a group or person who has those to whom it could be passed down to and if that group or person is not available to allow them to make their claim of possession passed down, then it is not unreasonable or unethical to claim possession of said land as there is no evidenced or actual dispute over it."
And, if applicable, we undermine the basis of the entire assertion made:
"Also, every last inch of this continent was not taken by force because the natives did not possess every last inch of it before the colonists and pioneers. Much of it was claimed as it was NOT possessed. Most of what was claimed by force was done so by the state and so we can assume that most of the land taken by force may be found in metro centers and 'public' property while much of the rural and newer communities may likely have developed from peacefully claimed properties expanded and sold over time."
Now, this particularly hard-headed person wasn't quite done. Notice how he refers to ancaps in a way that seems that he assumes I am a separate, third party. Which I am:
"Ancaps always claim that existing forms of property that they like are historically the result of 'homesteading', and therefore justified according to them. The make this claim despite having no evidence and despite the actual historical facts, which show for example its real origins in violent conquest."
And so we repeat the bulk of the process with a few changes. We essentially have him pleading his case at this point and so he is on the defensive. This means we can go on the offensive rather than 'riding the rail':
""Always" is almost always a sure way to prove that you are building an argument on assumptions and not on evidence. Likely anecdotal evidence.
So you've talked to every ancap about this and every one of them has said the same thing?"
Essentially, we attack the argument, in this case, the semantics of it. It helps to put them off balance if we couple the core argument with fallacious truths like this. But we're going to make sure that, fallacy or not, the core of our argument is fairly unassailable. This is where people make mistakes. If you're going to engage in fallacies, make sure you have a strong argument that can withstand the fallacies being resisted.
Then we reiterate what we have said because they seem to have trouble getting what we said, if they had and if they are rational, they would have let it go:
"If you refer, again, to my points above, if there is no known record of actual claim and/or possession and no current person or group to make the claim as reasonable 'heirs' to the 'original' claim, then it is not unreasonable or unethical to proceed as if there is not and was not a claim because there is no reasonable way for the claim to be discovered or evidenced.
So, unless the land they like has evidence of a claim/possession that was forcibly rescinded(taken) and has a current person or group who is claiming inherited claim upon said land, there is no reason for the land to be assumed to have a history of being violently appropriated and of having a current claimant to take possession of it."
Another fallacy or two, but again, not central to our argument:
"But I'm sure you'll ignore this in order to attempt to keep claiming that ALL ancaps ALWAYS claim that the land they want is in no way tied to violent possession.
Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that a great deal of the land that was possessed and claimed by the natives was derived from their own conquest and so even their claim could be contested as invalid based on the violent appropriation they engaged in."
I like to use this method because it makes them feel that I hear what they say(I repeat it back) though they may think I am misinterpreting because they don't like how it sounds when I strip it of its bias. But this opens them up to compromise to what I say when I actually refute their argument. The fallacies I incorporate allows to keep them off balance, it makes it harder for them to know what argument to attack, the core or the fallacy? Attack the core and I can respond, attack the fallacy and I can discredit the whole argument by pointing out that their attack on a non-point is evidence(not definitive but they don't need to know that) that they have no real argument or evidence and so they are avoiding the issue at hand.
The whole time, I simply argue EVERYTHING they say. But I put emphasis on the core argument because that is what really matters. The rest is just 'foreplay'.